arthur jones got 25% of the vote..

[Postal Serv]

It does not mean I have to be okay with every viewpoint lol

No it means you are free to debate and argue it. You can be enraged by it but you don't get to erase it from exsitance .

[Adam Jensen]

Because they believe in democracy? We don't just abondan our founding principles because you don't believe people should have a say.

He has the right to be on the ballot

The Republican party could have done something to replace him. They could have kicked him out of the party and publicly denounced him. People in general should remember what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and not repeat that shit.

[tyrlaan]

I simply consider that best way to show Nazis their place is to defeat them fair and square each time they try to lift their head - just like it happened in this case.

Not to deny them opportunity to compete - that would be showing your potential weakness to them.

Do you seriously consider that simply allowing them to run will undo decades of civil right struggles that put them to fringes of society?

That by simply being heard they are going to win?

Of course not. But you know that and are just whipping out the extreme case to keep defending the Nazi's you said you don't like.

And if you would incorporate everything I said to you instead of cherrypicking which comments you respond to, you'd have notice I didn't say they couldn't run a candidate. What I did say is that the Republicans should not have let him be a representative of their party in the first place.

Nah this is like 36? I don't keep count. I also don't think you have a firm grasp on what democracy is...

I like how blatant you are about being a ban-evading alt account, I'll give you that much.

[Mekh]

People in general should remember what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and not repeat that shit.

Well, he thinks it should, provided there's a majority, it seems.

[Shalcker]

Of course not. But you know that and are just whipping out the extreme case to keep defending the Nazi's you said you don't like.

I do not consider "following the rules even if that allows Nazi to run" to be defending Nazis - it is defending the rules.

I understand that you prefer lawless society to Nazi ever running?

And if you would incorporate everything I said to you instead of cherrypicking which comments you respond to, you'd have notice I didn't say they couldn't run a candidate. What I did say is that the Republicans should not have let him be a representative of their party in the first place.

GOP didn't run a candidate there. Jones wanted to run himself and followed all relevant rules, and since no GOP candidate wanted to run on losing district there was noone from "GOP proper" available to contest him.

If that district had chance of GOP win they would obviously field someone and any alternative would win against him easily.

If you run two-party system making large chunk of society to be outsiders by arbitrary membership restrictions is quite dangerous to overall legitimacy.

[Postal Serv]

He has the right to be on the ballot

The Republican party could have done something to replace him. They could have kicked him out of the party and publicly denounced him. People in general should remember what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and not repeat that shit.

Sums up my stance on it pretty well.

[JohnBrown1917]

No it means you are free to debate and argue it. You can be enraged by it but you don't get to erase it from exsitance .

Which means you criticize and ostracize them all you want.

Has nothing to do with democracy.

[tyrlaan]

I do not consider "following the rules even if that allows Nazi to run" to be defending Nazis - it is defending the rules.

I understand that you prefer lawless society to Nazi ever running?

GOP didn't run a candidate there. Jones wanted to run himself and followed all relevant rules, and since no GOP candidate wanted to run on losing district there was noone from "GOP proper" available to contest him.

If that district had chance of GOP win they would obviously field someone and any alternative would win against him easily.

If you run two-party system making large chunk of society to be outsiders by arbitrary membership restrictions is quite dangerous to overall legitimacy.

Like I said, and I'll repeat it again since you keep avoiding this, the GOP could and should have done something other than pay him lip service once it was too late.

This is the eighth time he's run as a Republican. The eighth time. It's hard to not consider the GOP culpable in allowing him the legitimacy of an R next to his name.

You can keep up with your silliness if you like, but at the end of the day it should not be this challenging for the GOP to condemn Nazis.

[Shalcker]

Like I said, and I'll repeat it again since you keep avoiding this, the GOP could and should have done something other than pay him lip service once it was too late.

What exactly would be allowed in that situation that GOP could do yet didn't?

They followed most suggestions mentioned here that they actually could.

This is the eighth time he's run as a Republican. The eighth time. It's hard to not consider the GOP culpable in allowing him the legitimacy of an R next to his name.

As far as i understand it, it is the eighth time he tried to run as Republican; it's the first time he actually managed to do it by following all necessary steps properly.

You can keep up with your silliness if you like, but at the end of the day it should not be this challenging for the GOP to condemn Nazis.

They did condemn him though; condemnations do no strike him off the ballot.

[tyrlaan]

What exactly would be allowed in that situation that GOP could do yet didn't?

They followed most suggestions mentioned here that they actually could.

As far as i understand it, it is the eighth time he tried to run as Republican; it's the first time he actually managed to do it by following all necessary steps properly.

They did condemn him though; condemnations do no strike him off the ballot.

Here is just some relatively recent commentary on things the GOP could have done but didn't:

McSweeney is mad at Republicans in Illinois for failing to take Jones seriously at every turn: They said nothing as he gathered signatures to run, they didn’t challenge the signatures when he submitted them, and they didn’t try to run an alternative write-in candidate in the primary. Then, just two weeks ago, they missed an important filing deadline to get a third-party candidate on the ballot.

McSweeney is a member of the Illinois State Assembly, and a Republican.

Full article here: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1752586...olina-virginia

[GreenJesus]

Since it still involves supporting a Nazi, it really isn't. That's the core truth; you vote for a Nazi, you support that candidate. Period. We can quibble as to why, but your support is explicit.



And for a lot of Germans in the Nazi Reich, it was similarly tribal.

That was what led to millions of Jews being shoved into ovens.

So if I go to a store and buy an apple thinking "well I always buy these apples should be fine" and then go home and there is a worm in it does that mean I wanted a worm in my apple and I fully support it?

[Hilhen7]

So if I go to a store and buy an apple thinking "well I always buy these apples should be fine" and then go home and there is a worm in it does that mean I wanted a worm in my apple and I fully support it?

But the apple had a huge hole in it and the worm was visible if you inspected the apple, but you decided to buy it without looking.

[Shalcker]

Here is just some relatively recent commentary on things the GOP could have done but didn't:

McSweeney is a member of the Illinois State Assembly, and a Republican.

Full article here: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1752586...olina-virginia

They in fact did all that (linked from your article) - but his signatures were valid.

The chairman of the state Republican Party condemned Jones when he won the primary in March, saying that the party would “explore all options to oppose Mr. Jones’ candidacy — whether that be supporting an independent candidate for IL-03 after the primary, encouraging a write-in campaign, and potentially other options.”

The party had in the past forced Jones off the ballot by challenging his petition signatures, but said this time that they had no reason to question the validity and number of his signatures. After the deadline for registering third-party candidates for the ballot came and went last week, a party spokesman said that the petition process was too difficult for prospective candidates and that they would try to find a write-in candidate.

Well, clearly write-in failed as well - if they ever found one, that is.

They aren't exactly omnipotent there; and you wouldn't want them to be, really.

[GreenJesus]

But the apple had a huge hole in it and the worm was visible if you inspected the apple, but you decided to buy it without looking.

At worse it was ignorance. A lot of people don't know who every single person they vote for on the ballet.

[Endus]

So if I go to a store and buy an apple thinking "well I always buy these apples should be fine" and then go home and there is a worm in it does that mean I wanted a worm in my apple and I fully support it?

That's why I largely gave Republicans the benefit of the doubt in 2016. Maybe they seriously didn't realize what they had just voted for.

It's 2018. They've had more than enough time. They loved that wormy apple so much they've bought a whole bushel of wormy apples, on purpose this time.

[tyrlaan]

They in fact did all that (linked from your article) - but his signatures were valid.

The chairman of the state Republican Party condemned Jones when he won the primary in March, saying that the party would “explore all options to oppose Mr. Jones’ candidacy — whether that be supporting an independent candidate for IL-03 after the primary, encouraging a write-in campaign, and potentially other options.”

The party had in the past forced Jones off the ballot by challenging his petition signatures, but said this time that they had no reason to question the validity and number of his signatures. After the deadline for registering third-party candidates for the ballot came and went last week, a party spokesman said that the petition process was too difficult for prospective candidates and that they would try to find a write-in candidate.

Well, clearly write-in failed as well - if they ever found one, that is.

They aren't exactly omnipotent there; and you wouldn't want them to be, really.

When someone already tried 7 times prior, I don't think omnipotence is needed to sort out what's going to happen. And your citation from the article doesn't actually say they did everything, but rather that the didn't because it was too much of a bother.

At worse it was ignorance. A lot of people don't know who every single person they vote for on the ballet.

You know, I'd buy this if it was a State Senate position or Comptroller or something. But this was a House seat. If it was ignorance, that's an amazing new height of ignorance.

[Endus]

At worse it was ignorance. A lot of people don't know who every single person they vote for on the ballet.

Ignorance is the difference between the wide-eyed German who doesn't know why the SS wants their Jewish neighbours identified but is more than happy to point them out and watch them get dragged away, never to be seen again, and the SS officers doing the dragging.

The former are still entirely in support of the Nazi Reich and eagerly participating in targeting Jews for the Holocaust. Their ignorance isn't a defense.

And for the love of bacon, we're talking about House and Senate positions. Not local dogcatcher. We just had municipal elections in Ottawa a couple weeks back. I voted for my mayor, my local council member, and school board trustee. I knew who I was going to support in all three positions, due to the stance on the issues. Because that's my responsibility as a voter. If I don't know that shit, I should not be voting.

If you vote for someone because of their party affiliation, you're actively and willfully working to destroy your democracy.

[Postal Serv]

Ignorance is the difference between the wide-eyed German who doesn't know why the SS wants their Jewish neighbours identified but is more than happy to point them out and watch them get dragged away, never to be seen again, and the SS officers doing the dragging.

The former are still entirely in support of the Nazi Reich and eagerly participating in targeting Jews for the Holocaust. Their ignorance isn't a defense.

You are assuming they want to apologize for their beliefs. I think the future is going to be interesting. Identity politics are back and people are racially charged. There is still time for everyone to back off with it but that time isn't infinite.

[Shalcker]

When someone already tried 7 times prior, I don't think omnipotence is needed to sort out what's going to happen.

The expectations after 7 failures is 8th failure, not "Emergency! Nazi is trying again! Batter all hatches!"

And then he doesn't.

And your citation from the article doesn't actually say they did everything, but rather that the didn't because it was too much of a bother.

They, as written, had candidates and, i would guess, those candidates couldn't put up with arcane rules preventing nomination of undesirables. You know, same ones Nazi only could pass through on 8th attempt - that with one attempt every 4 years would be 16 years of trying...

Perhaps their defence was too good for last minute changes.


Don't you think that is more effort then any Nazi is worth anyway in a district where he is doomed to fail?

[tyrlaan]

The expectations after 7 failures is 8th failure, not "Emergency! Nazi is trying again! Batter all hatches!"

And then he doesn't.

They, as written, had candidates and, i would guess, those candidates couldn't put up with arcane rules preventing nomination of undesirables. You know, same ones Nazi only could pass through on 8th attempt - that with one attempt every 4 years would be 16 years of trying...

Perhaps their defence was too good for last minute changes.


Don't you think that is more effort then any Nazi is worth anyway in a district where he is doomed to fail?

He got 25% of the vote. What is the line you are drawing in the sand where it switches from "doomed to fail so we can just ignore it" and "oh, you know, maybe there's a problem here"?

When do you say its okay to shrug and not care vs. put in some effort to make it clear that you don't support Nazis?

Considering how associated Republicans have become with racists, xenophobists, white nationalists, and, yes, Nazis (and whether you think this is a far association or not is a completely different topic), don't you think that if they don't want to be associated with those things that they'd manage to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and address things like this?